Hey, there! Log in / Register

Men get to spend rest of life in prison for murdering boy delivered by emergency C-section after one of them shot his mother

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld first-degree murder convictions for two men who decided to escalate an Orange Line staredown with a rival in 2003 by shooting him, only the guy with the gun missed and instead put a bullet into a woman whose baby was only two weeks from term.

The baby was delivered alive in an emergency Caesarian section, but died shortly after.

The state's highest court ruled Chimezie Akara and Andre Green got a fair trial and they can now spend the rest of their lives thinking about the evening of February 5, 2003, when they turned car 1205 on an inbound Orange Line train into a shooting gallery as it pulled into Mass. Ave.:

Gadsden [the man they were staring at] got up from his seat and started walking to the front of the train, waving his arms and yelling, "there's a gun on the train" and "they have a gun," while pointing to the defendants. He exhorted passengers to get down, to "stay back," to "move to the other side," and to "get off the train."

When the doors opened at the Massachusetts Avenue subway station, passengers who had moved to stand near the first and second doors began running from the train. The defendants also got off the train. A passenger still inside car 1205, as well as passengers on the platform, heard pops or gunshots coming from the rear of the car, near door number three.

A passenger in a car behind car 1205 heard several loud bangs coming from the front of the train, followed by shouts and screams from the same direction. Ten seconds later, he saw a "pack" of four or five individuals running furiously, coming from the direction of the commotion and heading towards the exit at the rear of the station. They ran close together, in a group; all were wearing dark baggy clothes and at least one had on a gray hooded sweatshirt. The passenger heard the men laughing or chuckling, in a congratulatory manner, as though one had "scor[ed] a goal or made a basket." Another passenger saw a group of four young males running towards the exit. He observed the tallest member of the group (Akara) holding his waist, as if gripping something near his belt. ...

A passenger heard a scream, turned, and saw a woman (Barry), holding the left side of her abdomen. Blood was flowing between Barry's fingers, and there was a lot of blood on the floor. Barry, who was then thirty-six weeks pregnant, was a recent immigrant to the United States and was unable to speak or understand English. She had seen Gadsden walking up and down the aisle of the train waving his arms, but could not understand what he was saying. When the train came to a stop and passengers were getting off, a man tried to lead her through the middle door. Barry had taken just one step through the door when she heard a "pop pop"; she felt a pain in her stomach, saw that her stomach was covered in blood, stepped back into the train, and sat down. Gadsden, who had preceded Barry out the middle door, got back onto the train when he heard the second shot. He and others assisted Barry to a bench on the platform; Gadsden then got on the next train.

Barry was rushed to a hospital, where her son was born alive by cesarean section at 8:43 P.M. He had severe internal bleeding and organ damage from the bullet that had traveled through his body and exited the right side of Barry's abdomen; he died of his injuries forty-five minutes later. Emergency surgery was performed on Barry, who survived.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The passenger heard the men laughing or chuckling, in a congratulatory manner, as though one had "scor[ed] a goal or made a basket."

Makes me want to "score" against each freakin' one of 'em. Unbelievable. I hope they get no parole or release or whatever. Rot for good, animals.

up
Voting closed 0

Demons from hell.

up
Voting closed 0

Those two are not demons, they're simply individuals who place no value whatsoever on a fellow human being's life - in other word, wild beasts. The real demon is the lawyer who agreed to defend them. A beast can't hurt others once caged unless someone releases it from its cage, and we have a group of individuals with no morals who make their living uncaging the said beasts. Plenty of cops risking their life arresting armed violent gangbangers just to see them walk on some minor technicality that should not have mattered in the first place. Those two finally got locked up (after murdering someone, no less,) but how many have walked?

up
Voting closed 0

So lawyers are more culpable than murderers? I don't buy it

up
Voting closed 0

Most of those thugs have mile-long rap sheets, yet they always manage to beat the rap thanks to a bleeding-heart judge and/or a lawyer who knows all the dirty tricks in the book. Out of all the recent murders in Boston, were there any perps who didn't have prior records? How many lives could have been saved if police and prosecutors were allowed to do their job?

up
Voting closed 0

Have fun in Jail! Sorry you can't prove your innocence, cause your defender is a scumbag like you. Have a nice life!

up
Voting closed 0

What facts are you basing this statement on?

up
Voting closed 0

a lawyer who knows all the dirty tricks in the book.

You mean like the Due Process Clause and the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments? Damn those founding fathers for writing such dirty tricks into our constitution

up
Voting closed 0

> The real demon is the lawyer who agreed to defend them.

up
Voting closed 0

The real demon is the lawyer who agreed to defend them.

How sad. Here on my planet, our more advanced civilizations have something called the "rule of law", under which people accused of crimes, even people we're all pretty sure are guilty, are represented by good lawyers. We find that the adversarial approach, with a prosecutor trying to prove guilt and a defender trying to exploit any mistake the state makes, tends to keep the police and prosecutors on their game, and generally makes for a justice system that works well.

up
Voting closed 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

Those who are ignorant of History, are destine to repeat it.

Kinda sad, especially with the internet at their fingertips.

up
Voting closed 0

Perhaps it would help if defense attorneys were forced to actually prove their client's innocence instead of exploiting every loophole and technicality they can possibly think of. Eeeevil cop didn't file 27B stroke 6 within three and a half minutes of arresting MrThug, let him go! Eeeevil cop said "can be" instead of "can and will be" while mirandizing MrThug, let him go! Eeeevil cop didn't mention the color of MrThug's underpants in the affidavit - not detailed enough, let him go! MrThug didn't act threatening enough when gun and half pound of crack were found on him (i.e. only walked around with a gun but didn't stick it in the cop's face) - illegal search, let him go! Why waste time doing your job (i.e. proving your client is innocent) when you know every dirty trick in the book? Cops are under a lot of stress when dealing with violent armed criminals, they'll surely make some mistake that can be used against them.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not up to the defendant to prove his innocence. There's a reason the Constitution requires the prosecution instead to prove his guilt, which you'd hope they'd still be teaching in American history classes, but apparently not.

up
Voting closed 0

Does that mean we don't need defense attorneys, since they don't need to counter the prosecution and prove their client isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Also, shouldn't prosecution be given a chance to present their case instead of having it thrown out on a minor technicality?

up
Voting closed 0

The Constitution requires prosecutors prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, we have an adversarial legal system. The two don't always go together.

What you consider a "minor technicality" may in fact be something that gets to the very heart of our constitutional protections or, worse, displays malfeasance on the part of prosecutors and police.

up
Voting closed 0

under that "rule of law". What I find unacceptable is the fact they were allowed to appeal their case in the first place - not based on exculpatory evidence that would have demonstrated their innocence, but idiotic arguments like "Yes I'm a gang member, but how dare ypu mention that to the jury".

up
Voting closed 0

The rule of law is what protects you from arbitrary searches and seizures, from star chambers, from all the other excesses the founding fathers fought against and which are still all too common in large swaths of the world.

We have an entire system set up to let people appeals convictions, to ensure that justice is, in fact, done. Because until we come up with an absolutely perfect system, overseen by absolutely perfect people, mistakes will happen and, sometimes, it's up to the courts to rectify those.

In this case, the court agreed with you - these two were fairly tried and convicted and they'll never see freedom again. It's the price we pay to ensure the truly innocent aren't thrown away forever as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Then put one of those pressure cooker bombs in the hole, and not tell them when (or if) it will go off. I can't think of a better punishment.

up
Voting closed 0

It's car 01205. For some reason convention on the T and their predecessors is to add a "0" before heavy rail car numbers. I know you just got the number from the SCDAO press release.

up
Voting closed 0

But actually, I got it from the actual SJC ruling.

up
Voting closed 0

Wow, I remember this shooting. In addition to that tragedy, I can't believe that it took TEN YEARS to convict these people. The wheels of justice move slowly--as will the rest of their lives spent in jail.

up
Voting closed 0

The ruling today was on their appeal from that sentence.

up
Voting closed 0

But I'm not sure I understand the justices' discussion of "extreme atrocity or cruelty". How can extreme atrocity or cruelty be unintentional? The case law and definitions pertaining to extreme atrocity or cruelty seem counterintuitive at best and morally nonsensical at worst. It seems to me that the cruelty should be intentional in order for the perpetrator to be charged with that aspect of the crime, as the customary definition of cruelty seems to be intimately connected to the mental state and intentions of the offender. It's clear that neither the woman nor her unborn child were the targets of the gunfire, and it's not clear that any particular atrocity and cruelty was directed at the intended target, beyond the cruelty naturally inherent in all murders.
That said, these kids are fools, and they will pay for the decisions of this horrific day for the rest of their lives.

up
Voting closed 0

These guys sent a bullet tearing into the belly of a pregnant woman and ripping through the body of an unborn child, hurting him so badly that not even being delivered by surgeons at a world-class hospital can save his life, and that's not cruel or atrocious enough for you?

up
Voting closed 0

in order for an act to be considered "extremely cruel", the cruelty should be intentional. Otherwise that dude who left the baby in the car and got off scot-free a few weeks ago would also be guilty of "extreme cruelty" because of the atrocity and the suffering involved. Likewise people who hit pedestrians with their cars, causing terrible suffering in some cases. Likewise drone pilots and soldiers, and Obama himself, who routinely kill kids and babies "collaterally". Intent should matter if we are to add this compounding factor- "extreme cruelty"- to the crime. But that's the last I'm going to say about it, as I know I'm starting to sound pretty insensitive and cruel myself by talking about this in this way.

up
Voting closed 0